Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder

This is a discussion on Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Game over Obama closed the door on it. But then what did you expect?...

Doesnt' that already happen? I'm not sure how EP even applies there anyway. I think it is safe to say that none of us here are authorities on exactly when EP can be implimented, especially since the people who use it or are blocked by it can't agree, and the judges try to stay out of it.

I think we will just have to wait and see what happens.

I know that many Presidents have claimed what they have come to call "Executive Privilege" I would ask that somebody show me where in our Constitution our President was given such authority or ability. And when you can't .. I would ask that you show where Congress gave the President such authority other than under USC 50 War and National Defense to determine certain information classified and restricted from public dissemination. USC : Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE | LII / Legal Information Institute This of course does not keep it from Congress's eyes or from the eyes of those with a real-time need to view them.. just away from Public eyes.

I know that many Presidents have claimed what they have come to call "Executive Privilege" I would ask that somebody show me where in our Constitution our President was given such authority or ability. And when you can't .. I would ask that you show where Congress gave the President such authority other than under USC 50 War and National Defense to determine certain information classified and restricted from public dissemination. USC : Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE | LII / Legal Information Institute This of course does not keep it from Congress's eyes or from the eyes of those with a real-time need to view them.. just away from Public eyes.

This issue came up at least as early as the first Jefferson term in the early 1800s. Federalists
who controlled Congress wanted papers Jefferson didn't want to turn over. Jefferson was
the "strict constructionist" of his day; but asserted a privilege. The Federalists wouldn't accept that.
A negotiated agreement was arrived at in which Congress got part of what it wanted.

But turn this on its head. If there is no Executive Privilege, there must also be no Congressional Privilege,
and then what is to prevent The Executive from
demanding and even seizing every private paper possessed by The Speaker of the House or by any
other Congress person?

The system of Separation of Powers only works when there is mutual respect for the boundaries
implied by Separation of Powers. Similarly, neither Congress nor The Executive march into the halls
of the Supreme Court to demand records of their deliberations. The system can not work without
the boundaries being respected.

WHere are the boundaries? Two hundred plus years of practice and judicial rulings have defined them.

Our "constitution," that is our makeup as a nation and a government, is more then the very few words
we call our Constitution. It includes all of our laws, our traditions, our case law.

And our case law as well as quite a bit of history (real events, precedent), does allow for
Executive Privilege, so there isn't much point to arguing that such doesn't exist.

Chief Justice Burger, writing for the majority in US v. Nixon noted: "Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (Supreme Court opinion at FindLaw)

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

I am glad to hear how he said, he does not see where just because one person does something that it is automatically right for others to do the same thing. Executive Privilege is a fairly new concept over-all. I can't remember if it was Eizenhower who first used it or whom.. but I do know that the President who claimed it most in recent history was Clinton. Something like 14 times and that ultimately led to impeachment hearings. It has been challenged in Court as being non-existant (which I support), with mixed results depending on why the President invoked it to begin with.

I seem to recall that Nixon tried to use it to cover-up his complicity in Watergate and that backfired on him.

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Now, this does not grant them the type of privilege that the President is claiming as if you were to look at Section 5 above it, you will see that Congress establishes their own rules of conduct and is supposed to punish its own members with concurrence by 2/3rds vote.

I am glad to hear how he said, he does not see where just because one person does something that it is automatically right for others to do the same thing. Executive Privilege is a fairly new concept over-all. I can't

Not so actually. Jefferson and Congress almost had it out but reached a negotiated settlement. So, the concept
is pretty dang old.

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

Yes, but that is not the same as a privilege to keep their papers or their deliberations from The Executive.
At first, The Senate used to meet in secret.

Yes, Congress has a (now*) limited immunity from arrest, but there is an implicit privilege that The Executive
won't march into the office of The House Speaker and go through Congressional document.

Now, this does not grant them the type of privilege that the President is claiming as if you were to look at Section 5 above it, you will see that Congress establishes their own rules of conduct and is supposed to punish its own members with concurrence by 2/3rds vote.

Which has no bearing on whether or not and how the other branches might
interfere.

IN the end the only thing that keeps it working is mutual respect for the boundary lines, not
brinksmanship and constitutional crises.

* I put the word "now" in there because as we all know Congressmen are arrested, tried and convicted, and not uncommonly. Nor are they immune from traffic tickets, DWI charges and other similar matters. The immunity they have is the broad immunity; a Prez can't lawfully arrest the unholy lot of them while Congress is in session.

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

This issue came up at least as early as the first Jefferson term in the early 1800s. Federalists who controlled Congress wanted papers Jefferson didn't want to turn over. Jefferson was the "strict constructionist" of his day; but asserted a privilege. The Federalists wouldn't accept that.
A negotiated agreement was arrived at in which Congress got part of what it wanted.

As I found no direct cite in your post, I will request that you provide such.

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Chief Justice Burger, writing for the majority in US v. Nixon noted: "Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (Supreme Court opinion at FindLaw)

Again, You failed to provide a link to the citation, so I went to look for it to confirm what was being said by whom and will have to disagree with your conclusion of whom was saying what and why. Yes, there is such a statement in Justice Burgers written opinion, however if you will look more closely at it, he is paraphrasing part of the argument by President Nixons counsel. Let's look at the whole statement. Anyone wishing to follow along with me may do so at. United States v. Nixon - 418 U.S. 683 (1974) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

In support of his claim of absolute privilege, the President's counsel urges two grounds, one of which is common to all governments and one of which is peculiar to our system of separation of powers. The first ground is the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties; the importance of this confidentiality is too plain to require further discussion. Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process. [Footnote 15] Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; [Footnote 16] the protection of the confidentiality of
Page 418 U. S. 706
Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.
The second ground asserted by the President's counsel in support of the claim of absolute privilege rests on the doctrine of separation of powers. Here it is argued that the independence of the Executive Branch within its own sphere, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602, 295 U. S. 629-630 (1935); Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168, 103 U. S. 190-191 (1881), insulates a President from a judicial subpoena in an ongoing criminal prosecution, and thereby protects confidential Presidential communications.

However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.

Well before we even get to the background information that the decision was based upon, we find BLUF (Bottom line up front) as is common in SCOTUS decisions, so please refer to #3 and 4 under Held: (right below the syllabus) where it says:

3. From this Court's examination of the material submitted by the Special Prosecutor in support of his motion for the subpoena, much of which is under seal, it is clear that the District Court's denial of the motion to quash comported with Rule 17(c), and that the Special Prosecutor has made a sufficient showing to justify a subpoena for production before trial. Pp. 418 U. S. 697-702.

4. Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. See, e.g., 5 U. S. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 5 U. S. 177; Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 211. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the confidentiality of Page 418 U. S. 685 Presidential communications is not significantly diminished by producing material for a criminal trial under the protected conditions of in camera inspection, and any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Constitution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution. Pp. 418 U. S. 703-707.

Again, we come back to a reference to such EP being valid for the Protection of Classified information under what would be USC Title 50 War and National Defense that I spoke of earlier.

You should be able to see now that what you read was not the Courts opinion but simply background noise that the SCOTUS had to filter out. (Said a different way.. BS that the SCOTUS had to suffer through)

If Obama continues to act against Congress it could be to his detriment.

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

The President has it for his muslim buddies, but not much else that I can see.

Which is exactly the issue at hand.

I don't have much love for Obama, but I think this goes a little too far. He is actively assassinating plenty of the muslim extremists on a regular basis. The legality of that is also questionable, but that is another topic.

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

If Congress and the DOJ can waste all the time and money they did investigating Baseball players use of steroids....it seems to me that a FULL investigation can be done on this failed government program that cost not only money, but cost life......AMERICAN life. If they can waste time and money on the bogus "witch hunt" of Valire Plann incident....then they can do a independent counsel to find out who knew what and when they knew it on this gun scam. If they can put Scooter Libby in prison for a innocent mis speak to Congress, then Holder can be held responsible for lying to Congress and find out who in the Administration was leaking government secrets to the New York Times. Time to hold them responsible for the crap they are pulling.

A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
Susan B. Anthony
A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
Robert Heinlein